The recognition of Individual Limited Liability Companies under Indonesia’s Job Creation Law has expanded access to corporate legal personality for micro and small enterprises. However, this reform has not been adequately harmonized with the national agrarian legal framework, raising questions about whether these companies are eligible to hold land rights. This study examines the legal position of Individual Limited Liability Companies as subjects of land rights and develops a regulatory model that reconciles corporate legal personality with the principles of Indonesian agrarian law. It employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Primary legal materials comprise legislation governing limited liability companies, the Job Creation Law, the Basic Agrarian Law, and relevant implementing regulations. The analysis applies statutory interpretation, systematic legal reasoning, and the principles of legal certainty and separate legal personality. The findings reveal regulatory disharmony between corporate and agrarian law. Although an Individual Limited Liability Company has separate legal personality, this status does not automatically qualify it to hold land ownership rights, which are restricted to Indonesian citizens and legally designated entities. Nevertheless, such companies may qualify to hold cultivation rights, building rights, and rights of use, subject to the applicable statutory requirements. This study proposes a differentiated entitlement model that clarifies eligibility by land-right type, supported by authoritative legal interpretation, harmonized land registration procedures, and mandatory legal transfer and registration when founders’ land is incorporated into corporate assets. The study contributes to agrarian legal scholarship by clarifying the relationship between corporate legal personality and landholding capacity while offering a regulatory framework that promotes legal certainty, protects the nationality principle, preserves the social function of land, and advances agrarian justice for micro and small enterprises.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hutomo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: